Purchase your copy of the publication A Miscellany of Death and Folly at: egaeuspress.com/Death_&_Folly.html

I Profit and Loss:

Mourning Jewellery Makers, Hair Artists and Mourning Retailers

Exploitation of death through grief is as certain as death itself. Wherever a society can congregate, propagate and establish communities, there are hierarchical systems there to exploit the needs of its people.

In particular, fashion has been a focal point through which death has been exploited, due to its​ highly emotive nature. Giving representative tokens of love created a connective memory with the loved one and solace through it. Mourning jewellery, and its industry, rose to become a self-sufficient and highly profitable industry from the period of the 18th century to the early 20th century, creating many roles for men, women and children. Families sustained themselves through the act of creating tokens of love and grief, while given leave to explore their art and craft in jewellery design, silversmithing, goldsmithing, hair weaving and painting.

During the times when this mourning industry was burgeoning, the industry adapted to new technologies, constantly changing styles of fashion and social mobility all of which created opportunity the likes of which had not been seen previously. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to faster methods of construction and mass production, urbanisation, rapidly changing styles and machinery that had not been previously available. Families needed to adapt to these systems, otherwise their survival in business was not assured. The craft that was learned as an apprentice of a gold/silversmith was in a mercurial state all throughout the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Mourning jewellery is based around custom. Custom is driven from the top down; all levels of society wanted to mimic the styles of Court1, which had adopted and adhered to the three stages of mourning by the 18th century as led by Queen Victoria. This involved specific protocol which were in a state of flux from the 1760s to the 1820s.

Ordre chronologique des deuils de cour, an order published in 1765 established parameters ​ around the various times allowable and expected for a person entering the various mourning periods.2 This was determined based on the proximity of the person to the deceased member of the family. A wife may be in mourning for one year and three months, while a first cousin might be for eight days. Not all the stages were necessary in the Ordre. The stages of ‘first’, ‘second’, ‘ordinary’ and ‘half’ were detailed for brother, sister, husband and wife; however, the cost of honouring each stage of mourning would only be achievable by the most affluent families.

A pauper’s funeral would have been considered to be a blight against the family and the inability to show wealth would have suggested a lack of respect for the deceased. Taylor (1983) wrote of the perception of this in the c.1680s, it ‘was considered demeaning to be seen to skimp. This showed both lack of respect for the dead and lack of respect for the ordained social order. It was the combination of these two emotions which gave mourning regulations such a grip on society.’3 The need to present the family in mourning through visual symbology drove the increase in the production of products required for mourning during the early-modern period, where new wealth was growing a new merchant class.

What was required for the first stage mourning was to be as purposefully plain as possible. This involved an absence of reflective surfaces, images turned around and matte black finishes. Mrs John Sherwood wrote in Manners and Social Usages (1887) that ‘diamond ornaments set in black enamel [were] allowed in deepest mourning and also pearls set in black’4 were typically used in jewellery for the second stage and beyond.

At the second stage of mourning, black and white gems were permissible, which allowed for pearls and jet to become popular at this stage, particularly by the early 19th century.5 From the 16th century, pearl trade had increased, with trade routes opening up Europe to pearls from India, the Caribbean and the Persian Gulf.6 The trade centres of Lisbon and Seville increased the ability of the mourning industry to adopt pearls for the second stage of mourning. Jewels utilised pearls as the singular element, or as an addition, which was a

1 “Women of inferior Rank, such as Tradesmen’s wives behind the Compter should make no Alteration of their Dress since it cannot arise… but from a meer Affection of the Mode at St James’s…” – Universal Spectator, 1731 ​ ​ 2 Ordre chronologique des deuils de cour, Imprimerie de Moreau, 1763-1765 ​ ​ 3 Taylor, L. (2009) Mourning Dress (Routledge Revivals): A Costume and Social History. Routledge; 1 ​ ​ edition. London, p. 181 4 Sherwood, Mrs John (1887). ‘Manners and Social Usages’. In Archive.org. Accessed 10:37, 13 ​ ​ June, 2019, from https://archive.org/details/danceman237 5 Ordre chronologique des deuils de cour, Imprimerie de Moreau, 1763-1765 ​ ​ 6 The Book of the Pearl: Its History, Art, Science and Industry (2011). Kunz, G. F., Stevenson, C. H. Dover Publications, New York, p. 237 contrast to the harsh black that had been used solely in the first stage. Pearls were accessible and had been used for lower grade gold jewels, particularly in the 19th century, allowing them to be adapted well to mourning jewels, particularly in terms of affordability.

The third/half stage of mourning allowed the integration of diamonds, jet, soft mauves, violet, pansy, lilac and purple.7 Access to diamonds from Brazil increased the usage of the gem in the early 18th century; Oakenfull (1919) reported that between 1732 and 1771, ‘at least 1,666,500 carats of diamonds were exported to Europe.’8 High market saturation and lower cost did not make diamonds completely accessible for all; indeed, the expense of the customs prescribed for the various mourning stages acted to reduce their accessibility. However, as these stages were advisory, the range of mourning accoutrement that was allowed within the realms of fashion adapted and expanded, allowing affordability and access. Indeed, mourning warehouses and jewellers of the 19th century faced a wide amount of competition, despite the demand for mourning fashion and accessories being high.

Looking at the business trajectory of Samuel Courtauld’s and Co., a manufacturer of fabric and clothing and fibres, the clear correlation between demand for mourning fabrics and profit can be seen. Established in 1794, Courtauld's focused on silk and crepe, which were essential for all stages of mourning fashion. As written by Taylor;

"From 1835 to 1885 capital rose from £40,000 to over £450,000. The boom years of 1850–85 coincided exactly with the peak of the Victorian passion for mourning etiquette. Samuel Courtauld built up a personal fortune of £70,000 and in 1850 bought himself an estate at Gosfield Hall, near his factories, with 2,000 acres of land."9

In the span of fifty years, the business’s capital growth from £40,000 to £450,000 was a 1025% uplift at a time when the gross domestic product was 100,179.00 international dollars.10 Mass urbanisation following the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom during the 19th century created larger audiences who demanded the drive in mourning products. Based on the metric of Courtauld's capital alone, the clear drive for mourning products allowed for businesses to build a name for themselves and profit from grief and mourning.

Mourning warehouses spanned the United Kingdom in the 19th century. These warehouses were designed to take care of all mourning needs. In Deptford, there was Munro's Mourning Warehouse, in Aberdeen there was Sangster & Henderson's Mourning Warehouse, in Regent Street, Peter Robinson's Mourning Warehouse and one that advertised prolifically was Jay's Mourning Warehouse.

7 Taylor, L. (2009) Mourning Dress (Routledge Revivals): A Costume and Social History. Routledge; 1 ​ ​ edition. London, p. 181 8 Oakenfull J.C. (1919) Brazil: Past, Present, and Future. John Bayles and Sons and Danielsson Ltd., ​ ​ London, p. 488 9 Ibid 10 Angus, M. 2003. The World Economy (Development Centre Studies), OECD Publishing. Paris, p. ​ ​ 33.

"FAMILY MOURNING!! PETER ROBINSON'S Family and General Mourning Warehouse is now (since its extensive alterations) the largest in London. Families will effect a great way of saving by forwarding their orders to this Establishment, where the best Mourning may be purchased at the most reasonable prices, and the wear of every article is guaranteed. Dresses, Mantles, Bonnets, and Mourning Costume of every description are kept ready made, and can be forwarded in town or country immediately on receipt of order. Dressmaking to any extent on the shortest notice. Mourning Establishment, 103 and 104, Oxford-street, London."11

Robinson and Jay frequently discuss the cost of their products being economically friendly, fast to produce and available for both town and country delivery. Given the short amount of time between death and the interment of the body, the family and the deceased needed to have their mourning needs met at a rapid pace. Jay's advertisement on the 8th of October 1864 also supports this:

"Though Messrs. Jay professedly keep the best articles for mourning and half-mourning, they supply complete suit domestic mourning for 2 1/2 guineas. Mourning costume of every description is kept ready-made, and can be forwarded, town or country, at a moment’s notice."12

11 Illustrated London News Group (1864). ‘HAIR JEWELLERY, - ARTIST IN HAIR’ advertisement on Illustrated London News, 21 September, p. 301 ​ 12 The Proprietors, “Preston Herald”, Preston (1864). ‘MESSERS. JAY’ advertisement on the Preston ​ Herald, October 8, p. 8 ​ ​ ​ Being in Regent Street, Jays could also support a healthy business in Preston, Lancashire, quite a distance from London. Demand for mourning products allowed for these businesses to flourish. At the time of William Chickhall Jay's death, his probate lists his worth as being over £100,000.00, an incredible sum for 1888.13

Jewellers also benefited from the custom of the stages of mourning. The gift of a mourning ring or a ring commemorating the death of an influential person had been part of custom in England since the 17th century. So prolific was this custom, that Samuel Pepys 1633 – 1703, the member of parliament and administrator of the navy, left 123 rings to his loved ones at the time of his death. Pepy's diary, which he wrote from January 1st, 1660, describes several instances where the giving of mourning rings was part of standard custom upon the death of a friend or member of the community. In 1661, Pepys was 28 when he described the dissemination of mourning rings:

"Sir W. Pen and Captain Terne and went to the buriall of Captain Robert Blake, at Wapping, and there had each of us a ring, but it being dirty, we would not go to church with them..."14

These early records of several rings being produced for the burial of Captain Robert Blake are essential to understand the contemporary custom of how mourning jewels were required at the time of death. Cost and status played a factor into this, as Pepys worked his way up from the humble origins of his father, who was a tailor, and a mother who was the daughter of a butcher, through an education at Cambridge.. Pepys’ daily activity captured through his personal diary offers insights into the growing middle class of the 17th century and how they approach mourning conventions.

"At Greenwich I come to Captain Cocke’s, where the house full of company, at the burial of James Temple, who, it seems, hath been dead these five days. Here I had a very good ring, which I did give my wife as soon as I come home."15

The mourning ring here is clearly an expected token from the burial of the loved one. It is an artefact of the funeral and given as a take-away item, which Pepys was then able to gift to his wife. He considers the ring to be 'a very good' one, which is interesting in that he has seen enough mourning jewels from funerals to create a hierarchy of quality.

"This day my Lady Batten and my wife were at the burial of a daughter of Sir John Lawson’s, and had rings for themselves and their husbands."16

Proximity towards the family can be seen here, with the rings for themselves and the husbands. Mourning rings weren't a gendered item, but given freely as tokens in memory of a person. This is important to note, as it breaks the mourning ring away from purely being an item of fashion. Mourning jewellery had an existence as a cultural item of relevance prior to its period of heightened fashionability, such as the second half of the 19th century, where it

13 ‘England & Wales, National Probate Calendar’ (1888). Index of Wills and Administrations ​ 14 Pepys, Samuel; Diary of Samuel Pepys, Saturday 13th of April, 1661 ​ ​ 15 Pepys, Samuel; Diary of Samuel Pepys, Monday 29 March, 1669 ​ ​ 16 Ibid cross pollinated with sentimental jewellery, as seen in the proliferation of jet jewellery, made popular by Queen Victoria after the death of Albert, Prince Consort, in 1861.

Cost is the underlying element in Pepy's writing that needs to be discovered, as it is tied to both fashion and politics. Mourning jewellery, and jewellery in general, was not a cheap item. Lower costs of mourning jewels has been achieved at times by using lower grade alloys in the jewels, particularly in times of war, such as in the early 19th century where we find jewels from the era with higher traces of zinc in the gold. Pinchbeck, an alloy of copper and zinc, was used as a gold replacement post the 1854 Hallmarking Act, which allowed for lower grade alloys. Jewels could now be produced at larger sizes by consequence. Lower production cost and lower prices allowed for much larger, lighter jewels, which were necessary due to wide crinolines and larger sleeves being in fashion, and requiring statement jewellery that could match their grandeur. In the 19th century, mourning fashion was accessible through the benefit of cheaper products, while in the time of Pepys, only two centuries earlier, mourning products were accessible only to the the growing middle class and upwards, and met their expectations of what should be given at a funeral.

Colonel Robert Walpole (1650 – 1700), a contemporary of Pepys and father of Robert Walpole, the de facto first Prime Minister of Great Britain, left behind 72 mourning rings priced at £1 each to friends and family.17 . During the late 17th and 18th centuries, this expense would have eclipsed the average annual income of a family, making the expectation of a gifted mourning ring at a funeral relegated solely to higher society. As Hume has written, in 1688 "...more than 80 percent of families had no more than £50 per annum. To put this figure in context, I point out that Peter Earle’s calculations suggest that a “middling” family with two servants and a total income of £200 probably had something like £16 of discretionary spending power for the year."18

Despite this, allocation of funds in a will towards mourning jewels elevated the status of the family, as the perception of wealth had benefit to the family in society.

"I leave to my executors to whom to give Rings and mourning. To the poor of Normanton, near Darby, where I was born £5. Niece Sarah Prime. "To my son Nathaniel my Green Stone Ring sett with diamonds. "To my son Joseph my little Blew Stone Ring, and unto my son John my yellow stone Ring. To my Brother and Sister, Hodgkinson, Brother Nathaniel Prime's Widow Anne, and Brother Bennett and his wife, and to Brother Shaw, and to every of them a Ring of Twenty Shillings value to wear in Remembrance of Me... To my friend Mr Matthew Hobson a Ring of twenty shillings to wear in Remembrance of me." - Will of Thomas Prime, ob 20 November, 1727 ae 66.19

Twenty shillings was a substantial allocation of funds, considering the average annual income at the time of the early 18th century. In comparison, the cost of a female "solid

17 Last Will and Testament of Robert Walpole, May 29, 1700. Proved February 22, 1701 18 Hume, Robert D. (2014). ‘The Value of Money in Eighteenth-Century England: Incomes, Prices, Buying Power—and Some Problems in Cultural Economics’, Huntington Library Quarterly, University ​ ​ of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 373-416 19 Crisp, Frederick Arthur (1908). Memorial rings: Charles the Second to William the Fourth, in the ​ possession of Frederick Arthur Crisp. Privately printed, p. 63 ​ standard gold hall-marked ring for hair" in 1857 was 21 shillings. The addition of pearl and enamel took the cost to between 30 to 65 shillings. Diamonds that formed "a beautiful forget-me-not flower on black enamel" raised the cost to between 55 to 105 shillings each.20

Even with over a century of inflation, sellers managed to offer mourning rings accessible for the middle class by offering variable levels of quality. As seen in Nightingale's advertisement, they still ranged from the basic gold ring with hair at 21 shillings, through to the addition of diamonds and enamel at 105 shillings. This was quite a range for a jewel with a singular function and shows the range of people who would have needed to access and afford these jewels. The latter 18th and early 19th centuries were periods of high urbanisation and social movement, as the Industrial Revolution restructured manufacturing and required new skills for people to operate in new factory roles. This change in society allowed for more people to gain access to wealth, as the middle class lines began to move lower. Jewellery production increased with the new industrial techniques that were introduced through machinery. Lower grade alloys were regularly used in adulterating gold during the Napoleonic Wars and it wasn't until the Hallmarking Act of 1854 that standardization occurred in United Kingdom gold marking. These standards were 9, 12, and 15 carat gold.21

Demand for mourning jewellery remained high in the 19th century. Materials such as jet that were used in mourning jewels, but not solely for the purpose of mourning, thrived during the 19th century. As written by Muller, by the 1870s, the annual turnover of the Whitby jet industry was said to be over one hundred thousand pounds, with a jet craftsperson earning between three and four pounds a week. In 1832 there were only two shops employing twenty-five people; in 1872, there were two hundred shops employing fifteen hundred women, men and children, taking over the landscape of Whitby.22 The volume of growth and profit for these jet carvers is exponential for such a small region, in the space of forty years.

A thriving industry and an upwardly mobile society that required mourning goods offered potential for the gold, silversmith and hair artist to produce a variety of items for a wide audience. Although creating business through grief didn’t necessarily lead to profit. The people who created these jewels faced heavy competition in their market, limited access to materials and aggressive advertising campaigns.

The Jeweller Gold and silversmiths of the 18th and 19th centuries increased in number with urbanisation, industry and population growth. As there was a high demand for mourning jewellery in the late 18th and 19th centuries, jewellers needed to cater to this growing market. If profit could be made from death, a jeweller could substantiate a business and maintain a family.

20 Nightingale, JNO. T. (1857). Eddowe's Shrewbury Journal, December 9. ​ ​ 21 ASSAY OFFICE LONDON. ‘History of Hallmarking’. In The Goldsmiths' Company Assay Office, ​ ​ accessed 14:04, 12 June, 2019, from https://www.assayofficelondon.co.uk/about-us/history-of-hallmarking 22 Muller, Helen. Muller, Katy. 2009. Whitby Jet. Shire Library. London, p. 15. ​ ​ Hallmarks in jewellery identify the maker of the jewel, but not the seller of the jewel. Tracing a mourning ring to its inception is a relatively simple process of identifying its hallmarks, which should have the sponsor/maker mark followed by the metal/purity mark, the Assay Office mark to show where the jewel was tested and marked, then the date mark. These small stamps, which are generally found inside the band of a ring or at the reverse/inside of a locket, were required to maintain the quality of silver and gold articles to a Crown standard. For the purposes of mourning jewellery identification, they tell an even more important tale than the name and date of death of the deceased.

Matthew Govett was a late 18th century maker, who began studying under James Richards, a goldsmith and watch case maker of Bridgewater Square, in 1781. Govett established himself in Ironmonger Row and took an apprentice, Joseph Potter, in 1818. Govett passed away in 1823, leaving behind many examples of his mourning jewellery, particularly from the turn of the 19th century.23

James Chafey Esquire passed on at the age of 71 in 1802, leaving behind a mourning ring of black and white enamel inlay with the stamp of Matthew Govett and a contemporary date of manufacture inside the band. In the styling of the ring, the simple shape of the even enamel lines makes it quite a fashionable style, contrasting with the also fashionable Neoclassical designs that were popular during this time. Stylistically, this ring does not conform to contemporary design, with the large 'navette', north to south, shape of the ring accommodating an allegorical scenario of death painted on ivory. Rings such as these were often painted in sepia tones, with a weeping willow flanking the top of the design, an urn or tomb in the centre and a Greco-Roman female figure weeping next to the urn/tomb. Chafey's ring made by Govett is simple, stark and becomes the vision of a tombstone worn on the finger. Gold content in this ring tests at 22 carat, making this a ring designed for someone at the higher level of society.

23 Grimwade, A. (1976) London Goldsmiths: Their Marks and Lives, Faber & Faber. London, pp. 311, ​ ​ ​ 344

Benjamin Denman passed away on the 31st of January 1803 at the age of 33, with another ring attributed to the hallmark London 1802. Govett's hallmark is displayed on the ring, which has survived in better condition than the now lost enamel. Its design is identical to the Chafey ring, with the difference being the name and date of death. For these bands to have been made at volume in a new geometric design, Govett would have been required to embrace a quickly changing design aesthetic and clearly this allowed high turnover.

Popularity with a maker promotes business and increases demand; they have a promotable brand. Govett's clientele reflects the adaptability of his product. Sir Stephen Lushington, 1st Baronet, Member of Parliament and three term chairman of the East Indian Company passed away on the 12th of January 1807 and it was also Govett who created his mourning ring. From 1782 Lushington was a director of the East India Company, deputy chairman from 1789-1790 and chairman for three terms: 1790-1791, 1795-1796 and 1799-1800. He was a Member of Parliament from 1783-1784, returning to parliament in 1790 where he remained for the rest of his life. He was created a Baronet on 26 April 1791. The Lushington Baronetcy of South Hill Park, Berkshire still exists today, with the 8th Baronet born in 1938. Sir Stephen Lushington died in 1807. His mourning ring reads 'SIR STEPHEN LUSHINGTON - BART OB 12 JAN 1807 AE 63'.24

Given the status of Lushington and the quality of the contemporary rings, it would be easy to make assumptions about Govett as a goldsmith. His quality is clear, his style is unique to its time and it could be considered that the way he approached being a goldsmith with a focus on mercantilism allowed him to find the right market for his product and expand upon it. Death is a certainty, so why not exploit a new style for the benefit of business?

Having his origins as an apprentice under Joseph Potter in 1781, Govett's experience in teaching and mentoring other goldsmiths his own craft also opens an understanding of the challenges faced by the human behind the business.

On the 28th October 1812, Govett testified at the Old Bailey:

CHARLES WILLIAMS. Theft: theft from a specified place. 28th October 1812 Reference Number t18121028-47 Verdict Not Guilty Related Material Associated Records 888. CHARLES WILLIAMS was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Matthew Govett , about the hour of eleven at night, on the 6th of October ,

24 Wikipedia contributors. (2019, June 11). Sir Stephen Lushington, 1st Baronet. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:46, June 12, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Stephen_Lushington,_1st_Baronet&oldid=901348339 and stealing therein, two watches, value 2 l. twenty-four watch-cases, value 12 l. and eighty ounces of silver, value 20 l. his property .

MATTHEW GOVETT . I am a watch-case maker . I live in Ironmonger-row, St. Luke's . The prisoner was my apprentice . He left me in Whit-Monday. He had not resided with me since I rent the whole house. I and my family sleep in it. The shop is attached to the house. We can go to it without going into the street.

Q. Is Hardcastle an apprentice of yours - A. Yes, and Miles. They sleep in the shop, in the same bed.

Q. On the night of the 6th of October, did you see any of your property that were put under the bed - A. I did; there were two ingots of silver, about eighty ounces, in a drawer, with watch-cases finished and unfinished, and two watches also.

Q. Were they entire watches - A. No, only parts of watches. There was a drawer with silver watch-cases, and a box of silver cuttings, and different descriptions of silver. This was all safe on the 6th of October. The value of all was nearly eighty pounds.

Q Did you see Hardcastle and Miles in bed that night - A I did. I looked through the window and saw them in bed. They went to bed before I did. They usually go to bed about half after ten, seldom later.

Q. I believe you never found any of your property again - A. No, except some little silver pendants in the morning. I went to bed a little after eleven, and my house was perfectly secured.

Q. Were you the last person in the shop - A. No. A lad of the name of Baldwin locked up the shop. I locked the street door myself. Before I went to bed the house was fast in all respects, as to the front of the street.

Q. How could any person get into the shop without getting in the front way - A. By the back way it opens into a place where there are new buildings.

Q. Could any person get into your shop without getting into some part of your premises - A. They must get into my yard. The yard is fenced from a public passage, by a wall. In the morning, a little after six o'clock, I was called up by Hardcastle. I went into the shop. I perceived the drawers were all gone excepting two. They had taken the contents, and the drawers. There was no appearance of violence to the shop. I found a window open in the shop. I went to the window to see if I could see any footsteps outside. I found none. There was missing four or five boxes, which were emptied. The drawers, with two ingots of silver, and the watch cases, were all taken away. Hardcastle then went out of the shop, over a wall, and brought back an empty box, belonging to the shop. That is all I have recovered except four pendants. In consequence of that Hardcastle and Miles were taken up on the Wednesday morning.25

Govett speaks of his family and of living in the shop, closing the shop himself and of having his apprentices living in the space as well. The empathy of Govett shows in the record; he

25 Old Bailey Proceedings Online, accessed 11:02, 02 July, 2019, from www.oldbaileyonline.org, ​ ​ version 8.0, 02 July 2019), October 1812, trial of CHARLES WILLIAMS (t18121028-47). clearly is affected by the burglary, which is a high sum of £80. Here is a person who had opened their house to an apprentice and been victimised by it. The modesty of living in the same building with his family and apprentices does not speak to an affluent gentleman, but to a worker.

We can see that the merchant warehouses from the time accrued great capital; however, the smaller-scale producers and workers within the industry, such as Govett, were not as fortunate. As a reminder, Samuel Courtauld owner of Courtauld’s was himself worth £700,000.00 and from Jay's Mourning Warehouse, William Chickhall Jay accrued £100,000.00, not the producers and workers within the industry.

It was the stores, the profit power-houses that could advertise and exploit grief in powerful ways. Controlling the advertising, the competition between businesses could be fierce, as seen in newspaper advertisements. Larger jewellery manufacturers relied on their own brands to sell products and employed workers to execute on their established styles. Smaller gold and silversmiths had their base cost to honour, as well as living overheads. The front-of-house stores offered a variety of products, with each advertised under their own merits.

JOSEPH'S REPOSITORY 92, BOLD-STREET

The attention of the Nobility, Gentry, and Public is respectfully invited to this MART OF COMBINED SPLENDOUR AND UTILITY. THE STOCK More varied than any other establishment in Liverpool and surpassed by none in the Kingdom, will be found to consist of every article of British and Foreign Manufacture.

LONDON SOLID GOLD JEWELLERY Of the newest fashion and most elegant designs... MOURNING AND WEDDING RINGS HAIR-WORK MADE AND MOUNTED26

Joseph's also featured a large range of cutlery, musical instruments, spectacles, hunting rifles, ironmongery and jewellery repairs. Even in 1839, the competition was fierce, as can be seen in the manner in which Joseph's markets their store's wares as the best 'in the Kingdom', stocking items from around the world and locally. A gold or silversmith would do well to be part of this business, as their work would be featured and sold.

Jewellers of the19th century faced high demand for their products, but were largely removed from the purchase process. Stores merchandised with their products, presenting them under their own banner, and took orders from a variety of manufacturers. Jewellers of distinction, however, were able to become their own brand, such as Tiffany & Co. who produced a mourning brooch in 1868. Yet the smaller gold and silversmiths have only their hallmarks as the artefacts of a business that was.27 Jewellers maintained competition through the quality of their work and materials, and often also created peripheral metal products, such as watch cases, not singularly mourning jewels. On another front, hair artists experienced different challenges to jewellers; when a material used for mourning art was precious for sentimental reasons, and close to the person who is in mourning the personality of the artist using it became far more important.

Hair Artists Jewellery sold in stores was sourced from a variety of gold and silversmiths, but it was another kind of craftsperson who was integral to the mourning jewellery industry: hair weavers. Hair weaving was highly competitive during the 19th century and the weavers relied on their own skill level to order to promote their businesses.

The volume of hair artists/weavers fluctuated during the 19th century and by the mid 19th century, several businesses had become highly successful in their own practice. In the following newspaper classifieds from April 23rd, 1864, the Illustrated London News shows the fierce competition between four of these weavers:

26 Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Ltd (1839). ‘JOSEPH'S REPOSITORY’ advertisement on Liverpool ​ Mail, October 3, p. 1 ​ ​ ​ 27 The Met. (2019, June 13). ‘Brooch | Tiffany & Company’, Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed ​ ​ 15:36, June 13, 2019, from https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/2000.556/

HAIR JEWELLERY, - ARTIST IN HAIR. DEWDNEY begs to inform Ladies and Gentlemen that he beautifully makes, and elegantly mounts in Gold Hair Bracelet, Chains, Brooches, Rings, Pins, Studs, &c, and forwards the same at about one half the usual charge. A beautiful collection of specimens, handsomely mounted, kept for inspection. An illustrated book sent post-free. - Dewdney, 172 Fenchurch-street, London.

A. FORRER, HAIR JEWELLER to the QUEEN, 2 Hannover-street, Hannover-square

HAIR JEWELS. - Illustrated Price-lists sent free by post by B. LEE, 41, Rathbone-place, London,. W. Quality and workmanship prove himself the cheapest manufacturer in England.

HAIR JEWELLER. - G. HOOPER, Artist in Hair, Solid Gold Lockets for Hair, from 5s, each ; Hair Rings, from 6s. 6d. ; Hair Chains, from 12s each &c. Illustrated Catalogues sent free. 213, Regent-street, London.28

. These advertisements are clustered together in the newspaper, showing just how the wording and offering of a business attempted to differentiate offerings amongst a highly competitive city. Hooper is the only hair artist to offer cost, which ranged from 5 to 12 shillings. It is Dewdney who promotes his business at the highest level, with superlatives such as 'beautiful', 'elegant' and 'handsome'. Lee promotes himself as 'the cheapest manufacturer' in England, while the bold statement of Forrer is clear, that he is the 'hair jeweller to the Queen'.

28 Illustrated London News Group (1864). ‘HAIR JEWELLER. - G. HOOPER’ advertisement on Illustrated London News, 23 April, p. 6 ​ ​ ​

Commerce was primarily the factor in these advertisements, with the promotion of post-free catalogues on request to enhance the sales experience. In the same way that the Mourning Warehouses such as Jay's would promote 'inexpensive mourning', the sentimentality of a loved one's hair now had a cost associated with it.

REID AND SONS, GOLDSMITHS AND JEWELLERS TO THE QUEEN, MAKE and MOUNT in GOLD every description of SOUVENIR IN HAIR HAIR BRACELETS Gold-mounted, from 5s 0d upwards HAIR BROOCHES Do. from 10s 0d upwards HAIR CHAINS Do. from 7s 0d upwards HAIR RINGS Do. from 4s 6d upwards HAIR PINS Do. from 15s 0d upwards 41, Grey Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.29

For the cost of 5 shillings, hair could be given and woven into an artefact or accessory. The loved one may be living or deceased, as hair weaving was not exclusive to mourning. It was an affordable, sentimental material that was popularised from royalty down. For the hair weavers and artists, there needed to be quality assurance in the weaving of the hair to ensure that the hair was actually that of the loved one. Colour-matching was a skill that involved matching hair samples of loved ones to that of hair sold internationally. To fund their convents, nuns would grow, cut and sell their hair for weaving. Hair was an expensive commodity, not only in the United Kingdom, but France; an 1871 article in St. Neots Chronicle and Advertiser states "...the price of human hair in France was only about eight francs the kilo. The enormous increase in the value of the article which has since that time taken place begun with the Empire. Between 1852 and 1663 the price ranged from sixteen to twenty francs the kilo; but when, in the seven following years... the rate per kilo, which was quoted forty francs in 1866, was no less than one hundred and five francs in 1871." St. Neots Chronicle and Advertiser - Saturday 27 February 187530

Advertising as a value proposition was utilised in marketing material, as can be seen in the Northern Whig from 1881:

29 Johnston Press (1858). ‘REID AND SONS, GOLDSMITHS AND JEWELLERS TO THE QUEEN’ advertisement on Shields Daily Gazette, August 5, p. 1 ​ ​ 30 Joseph Evans, H. Zachariah, W. (1875) ‘False Hair in France’, St. Neots Chronicle and Advertiser, ​ 27 February, p.3

PRIZE MEDAL HAIR JEWELLERY. D. S. HENDERSON & CO., ARTISTS IN HAIR, 18, CASTLE PLACE, HAVING been engaged for upwards of twelve years, both in this country and the sister island, in the manufacture of every description of Hair Work, and having studied the art both in London and on the Continent, and possessing every facility for the execution of orders, they can safely guarantee that any work leaving their Establishment, shall be of the highest character and of the best workmanship hitherto attained in this branch of art. On account of these advantages, anyone may possess a Souvenir of a dear and departed relative or friend, at a very small expense compared with what is generally charged at Hair Jewellery Establishments. Every precaution is taken that the actual Hair sent is used - the greatest care being taken in the execution of every order — and any hair remaining over is returned. About a quarter of an ounce of Hair is sufficient for a Bracelet, Chain, or Albert, and lees in proportion for smaller articles. — A Priced Catalogue will sent on receipt address.31

Henderson's statement of 'every precaution is taken that the actual Hair sent is used - the greatest care being taken in the execution of every order — and any hair remaining over is returned' solidifies the deception around the weavers not using the actual hair of the loved one. The statement around extra care shown by Henderson offers insights into the importance of driving sales for the hair artist.

31 Northern Whig (1881). ‘PRIZE MEDAL HAIR JEWELLERY. D. S. HENDERSON & CO., ARTISTS IN HAIR, 18, CASTLE PLACE’ advertisement on the Northern Whig, August 4, p.3 ​ ​ Hair artists were closer to their subjects than the gold and silversmiths due to having to deal directly with a client. This required aligning the business as an affordable, trusted source, going well beyond what the regular jeweller would be required to do for the purpose of selling a mourning ring.

It was of the utmost importance that hair artists also maintained quality in their practice. Hair is shown in the advertisements as being an affordable material to use for jewellery, so it would be easy to simply market the cost of hair as the only sales point. Competition made the hair artistry business focus on the quality of the work and the credentials of the hair artist. Focusing on the jeweller, how they branded themselves, the work and the cost is paramount to understanding how and why a customer would entrust their loved one’s memory with the artist.

V&A Museum Collection

Sarah Beth Sparks passed away on the 1st of March, 1841, aged 16. Her hair was taken to Antoni Forrer to be woven into a bow shape with the centre bound with gold wire and trimmed with gold tassels. Forrer's attention to detail in the brooch is of the highest quality. There is a very open weave to the piece, adding to its delicacy.

Antoni Forrer was a Swiss jeweller from Winterthur, who moved through several locations in London, being 93 Oxford Street, London in 1835-36, 136 Regent Street, in 1840-60, 32 Baker Street in 1861-63, 2 Hanover Street in 1864-75, 128 Oxford Street in 1876-79 and 286 Regent Street in 1880-82. He passed away at the age of 89 in 1889, leaving behind a successful business.

"ALL KINDS OF ORNAMENTS IN HAIR VIZ, NECKLACES, CROSSES, EARRINGS &c A. FORRER artiste en cheveux 136 Regent Street London - Box of Sarah Beth Sparks, Forrer.

Within the garter symbol, Forrer merges his own brand together with the royal coat of arms, that he proudly advertises in publications, as he is 'by appointment to the Queen.' This original box is an insight into the artefacts that are used to market the jewel beyond regular print advertising. A box would be carried and stored with such a precious element, in this case the hair of Sarah Beth Sparks and seen every time the brooch was revisited. It is of note that Forrer put so much branding into his products, which is hardly surprising, considering the competition of hair artists during the 19th century. At one point in 1857, there was a clear division between Forrer and Charles Packer, who would later trade as Charles Packer & Co until c.1932, as can be seen in the following advertisement from the Illustrated London News:

ANTOINI FORRER, ARTIST in HAIR and JEWELLER to the QUEEN, by appointment, 24 Baker-street, Portman-square (opposite the Bazaar). N.B. Antoni Forrer has no connection whatever with his late establishment at 136, Regent-street. _ CHARLES PACKER (late Anotoni Forrer), Artist in Hair to the QUEEN by appointment. Hair Jewellery Department, 136 Regent-street. Foreign and fancy ditto, 78 Regent-street. Jet and Mourning ditto, 76 Regent-street.32

Note how Packer is utilising the Forrer brand to promote their business, as he is the skilled artisan. For the following year, Charles Packer would continue to advertise the Forrer brand, while Forrer would attest his separation from his 'late establishment'. Disassociation between the businesses showsPacker as the 'mart', or mass retailer, in this case, with an abundance of a variety of products, including a 'hair jewellery department', which removes the individual personality of the hair business from the store. Forrer, as a small-scale artisan maintains his own name as his brand.

As in the cases of Lee and Henderson, the hair artist themself was required as a persona to allow marketing of their product. The personal nature of taking someone's hair and weaving it into a jewel is precious, even if only 'a quarter of an ounce of' hair, it represented the last artefact of a loved one. Forrer's use of his own brand was important at this time to entice new clientele, whereas the dehumanised department store feel of Packer’s business devalued the personal nature of the hair.

32 Illustrated London News Group (1857). ‘ANTOINI FORRER, ARTIST in HAIR and JEWELLER to the QUEEN’ advertised on Illustrated London News, 11 April, p.350 ​ ​ Business In summary, jewellers and hair artists of the 19th century faced different challenges in marketing their mourning wares to customers, and frequently utilised elements of trust, quality and affordability to entice the public into purchasing their jewels. The larger Warehouses and department stores had the benefit of the selling point of volume and variety, although this was a downside to the specific nature of hair artistry sales. As seen with Jay and Courtauld, in department store sales the profit remained at the business owner level, not the craftsperson.

Those who did not manage to effectively navigate the tricky nature of balancing fashion and value had the potential to suffer great loss rather than great profit. Alfred Shuff, of Shuff & Garnier 34 Marlborough Street, was a jeweller of the 19th century who did not publicise at the same volume of his competitors, but was known for hair art. Shuff's business, which was a partnership between himself and two others dissolved in 1864:

NOTICE is hereby given, that the Partnership between the undersigned, Samuel Blatchford Webber, William Webber, and Alfred Shuff, in the trade or business of Manufacturing Jewellers, at No. 30, Poland-street, Oxford-street, in the county of Middlesex or elsewhere, under the firm of Webber and Shuff, was, on the 1st day of July now instant, dissolved by mutual consent. — Dated this 2nd day of July, 1864. Samuel Blatchford Webber. William Webber. Alfred Shuff.33

Garnier became Shuff’s sole trading name after this time and the business did not flourish. In 1869, five years after the dissolution of the business, what was Garnier became no more:

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869 In London Bankruptcy Court. In the Matter of a Special Resolution for Liquidation by Arrangement of the affairs of Edmé Marie Thomas Garnier, of 34 Great Marlborough-street, in the country of Middlesex, Manufacturing Goldsmith and Jeweller, formerly trading as Shuff and Garnier, and lately trading as E. Garnier. THE creditors of the above-named Edmé Marie Thomas Garnier who have no already proved their debts, are required, on or before the 3rd day of June, 1879, to send their names and addressees, and the particulars of their debts or claims, to me, the undersigned, Samuel Slater, of No, 32. Queen Victoria-street, in the city of London, Accountant, the Trustee under the liquidation, on in default thereof they will be excluded from the benefit of the Dividend proposed to be declared. - Dated this 22nd of May, 1869. SAM. SLATER, Trustee.

This illustrates the difficulty of maintaining profitability for smaller-scale businesses; jewellers and hair artists of the 19th century relied on cost cutting, competition and quality. The public's high demand for these affordable jewels led to an increase in the hair artists and

33 Recorded in the Gazette, issue 22871 (1864). The London Gazette, 5 July, p.3397 ​ ​ gold and silversmiths of the time, but this didn't automatically lead to stability or financial success.

Business promotion in the wake of family grief needed to be delicate and trustworthy, as was seen in the examples of Dewdney, or of the highest level, as in Forrer's appointment to the Queen. Death was a sustainable way of exploiting a popular style of jewellery in a time of high mortality rates and a rigid mourning process.

Exploitation of death through grief is not an early-modern invention, rather it is as old as society itself. The ability to capture the memory of someone who has passed away keeps them alive for the grieving person or family. As the custom of mourning jewellery grew more and more into an established process from the 17th century onwards, it fed an industry that could produce jewels for this market. These people didn't all flourish, but many survived and expanded their craft and businesses based on the grief of others.

REFERENCES

Angus, M. 2003. The World Economy (Development Centre Studies), OECD Publishing. Paris. ​ ​

ASSAY OFFICE LONDON. ‘History of Hallmarking’. In The Goldsmiths' Company Assay Office, ​ ​ accessed 14:04, 12 June, 2019, from https://www.assayofficelondon.co.uk/about-us/history-of-hallmarking

Crisp, Frederick Arthur (1908). Memorial rings: Charles the Second to William the Fourth, in the ​ possession of Frederick Arthur Crisp. Privately printed. ​

‘England & Wales, National Probate Calendar’ (1888). Index of Wills and Administrations ​

Grimwade, A. (1976) London Goldsmiths: Their Marks and Lives, Faber & Faber. London. ​ ​

Hume, R.D. (2014). ‘The Value of Money in Eighteenth-Century England: Incomes, Prices, Buying Power—and Some Problems in Cultural Economics’, Huntington Library Quarterly, University of ​ ​ Pennsylvania Press

Illustrated London News Group (1857). ‘ANTOINI FORRER, ARTIST in HAIR and JEWELLER to the QUEEN’ advertised on Illustrated London News, 11 April, p.350 ​ ​

Illustrated London News Group (1864). ‘HAIR JEWELLERY, - ARTIST IN HAIR’ advertisement on Illustrated London News, 21 September, p. 301 ​

Illustrated London News Group (1864). ‘HAIR JEWELLER. - G. HOOPER’ advertisement on Illustrated London News, 23 April, p. 6 ​ ​ ​

Johnston Press (1858). ‘REID AND SONS, GOLDSMITHS AND JEWELLERS TO THE QUEEN’ advertisement on Shields Daily Gazette, August 5, p. 1 ​ ​

Joseph Evans, H. Zachariah, W. (1875) ‘False Hair in France’, St. Neots Chronicle and Advertiser, 27 ​ ​ February, p.3

Last Will and Testament of Robert Walpole, May 29, 1700. Proved February 22, 1701

Liverpool Daily Post & Echo Ltd (1839). ‘JOSEPH'S REPOSITORY’ advertisement on Liverpool Mail, ​ October 3, p. 1 ​ ​

Nightingale, JNO. T. (1857). Eddowe's Shrewbury Journal, December 9. ​ ​

Northern Whig (1881). ‘PRIZE MEDAL HAIR JEWELLERY. D. S. HENDERSON & CO., ARTISTS IN HAIR, 18, CASTLE PLACE’ advertisement on the Northern Whig, August 4, p.3 ​ ​

Oakenfull J.C. (1919) Brazil: Past, Present, and Future. John Bayles and Sons and Danielsson Ltd., ​ ​ London.

Old Bailey Proceedings Online, accessed 11:02, 02 July, 2019, from www.oldbaileyonline.org, version ​ 8.0, 02 July 2019), October 1812, trial of CHARLES WILLIAMS (t18121028-47).

Ordre chronologique des deuils de cour, (1763-1765). Imprimerie de Moreau. ​

Muller, Helen. Muller, Katy. 2009. Whitby Jet. Shire Library. London. ​ ​

Pepys, Samuel; Diary of Samuel Pepys, XXX ​ ​

Taylor, L. (2009) Mourning Dress (Routledge Revivals): A Costume and Social History. Routledge; 1 ​ ​ edition. London.

Recorded in the Gazette, issue 22871 (1864). The London Gazette, 5 July, p.3397 ​ ​

Sherwood, Mrs John (1887). ‘Manners and Social Usages’. In Archive.org. Accessed 10:37, 13 June, ​ ​ 2019, from https://archive.org/details/danceman237

The Met. (2019, June 13). ‘Brooch | Tiffany & Company’, Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed ​ ​ 15:36, June 13, 2019, from https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/2000.556/

The Proprietors, “Preston Herald”, Preston (1864). ‘MESSERS. JAY’ advertisement on the Preston ​ Herald, October 8, p. 8 ​ ​ ​

Wikipedia contributors. (2019, June 11). Sir Stephen Lushington, 1st Baronet. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 03:46, June 12, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Stephen_Lushington,_1st_Baronet&oldid=901348339

“Women of inferior Rank, such as Tradesmen’s wives behind the Compter should make no Alteration of their Dress since it cannot arise… but from a meer Affection of the Mode at St James’s…” – Universal Spectator, 1731 ​